THE TRUTH ABOUT IOWA: This Is What Voters REALLY Think Of The Candidates

Business InsiderMary Ellen Prier and Barb Dowd, two Black Hawk County caucus-goers

With just 48 hours to go until the Iowa caucuses, a startling number of the state's Republican voters still haven't decided who they are going to cast their ballot for on Tuesday night.

But this collective indecision isn't the result of apathy or a sudden distaste for politics. The sheer number of potential caucus-goers who turned out at meet-and-greets and rallies across the state this weekend suggest that Iowa Republicans genuinely want to vote for a suitable candidate. Many of them just haven't decided who he or she is yet — and even those who say they have settled on a candidate are apt to change their minds.

In the eastern city of Waterloo, for example, about 150 people crammed into a local bar yesterday to hear Newt Gingrich give his pitch, despite the fact that the former House Speaker has faded to a distant fourth place in Iowa polls.

As we waited for Gingrich to arrive, some of those voters told me what they are holding out for:

They want a positive message. Voters I spoke with frequently remarked about how they were looking for a candidate who was positive and uplifting. There seemed to be a widespread distaste for the rancor and negativity that has shaped the Iowa race. To be fair, Gingrich has campaigned on a promise to not go negative, so his rallies likely attract people who respond to that message. And there is evidence that positive campaigning works in Iowa — Herman Cain, Gingrich, and now Rick Santorum have all arguably been buoyed by their unwillingness — or financial inability — to run big negative campaigns. Conversely, voters seem turned off by the negative ads run by the Romney and Perry machines, even if the attacks are also working.

They are seriously turned off by Congress. The 'throw 'em all out' fervor of 2010 appears to have given way to a more accommodating tone, as Republican voters get increasingly disenchanted by partisan gridlock in Washington. Across the room Sunday, voters expressed the desire for a leader who could get things done, which explains the appeal of 1990s throwbacks like Gingrich and Santorum. These voters like bold ideas, but not at the expense of compromise.

They are very informed — and want to vote for someone who is too. Anyone who thinks Iowa politics is all about winning smiles and state fair flesh-pressing has been sorely misled. The caucus process does not lend itself to apathy — the entire thing is done out in the open, in front of all of your neighbors, so there is a powerful incentive to have at least some idea of what you are talking about. For the most part, the voters who came out Sunday had a clear idea of the issues that concern them — mostly the economy/jobs, but also foreign affairs — and their questions about Gingrich's farm and energy policy positions were surprisingly specific. They expected his answers to be equally well-informed.

They want the candidate who can take the biggest bite out of Barack Obama. Conventional wisdom holds that Iowa's socially conservative caucus-goers have been desperately looking for someone who is not a Northeastern Mormon with a hazy record on key issues like abortion and gay marriage. In reality, most of the voters I spoke to said they think Romney seems like a nice enough guy, but that they don't think he can really stick it to Obama next fall.

They really WANT to vote. Iowa voters may be undecided about who they are going to vote for, but there is no question that they are going to vote. This means that anything could happen tomorrow night.